Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Boeing

Discuss Stock buying Shares, tips and ideas for stock market dealing
scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4811
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Boeing

#375416

Postby scrumpyjack » January 10th, 2021, 10:32 am

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Boeing to pay $2.5bn over 737 Max conspiracy
The US Justice Department said the firm chose "profit over candour", impeding oversight of the planes, which were involved in two deadly crashes.

AiY


The penalties seem ludicrously small compared to the seriousness of their conduct and compared to other US fines. Most of the $2.5bn is compensation to victims rather than a fine. A jury might have imposed punitive damages of ten times that.

Dare I suggest the modesty of the penalty is not unconnected with Boeing being an American company and the victims being foreigners?

I'm sure there will be lots more court cases brought privately

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Boeing

#375455

Postby Dod101 » January 10th, 2021, 12:57 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Boeing to pay $2.5bn over 737 Max conspiracy
The US Justice Department said the firm chose "profit over candour", impeding oversight of the planes, which were involved in two deadly crashes.

AiY


The penalties seem ludicrously small compared to the seriousness of their conduct and compared to other US fines. Most of the $2.5bn is compensation to victims rather than a fine. A jury might have imposed punitive damages of ten times that.

Dare I suggest the modesty of the penalty is not unconnected with Boeing being an American company and the victims being foreigners?

I'm sure there will be lots more court cases brought privately


Insurance will cover most of the compensation for the victims and anyway they are a bunch of relatively poor foreigners in faraway countries and will not cost that much. These are not own beliefs (except for the insurance bit) but they probably cover the US thinking in the matter.

I am sure that the US Government does not want to drive Boeing out of business and the 'fine' if that is what it is needs to be no more than they can actually afford to pay.

Dod

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4811
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Boeing

#375464

Postby scrumpyjack » January 10th, 2021, 1:14 pm

Dod101 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Boeing to pay $2.5bn over 737 Max conspiracy
The US Justice Department said the firm chose "profit over candour", impeding oversight of the planes, which were involved in two deadly crashes.

AiY


The penalties seem ludicrously small compared to the seriousness of their conduct and compared to other US fines. Most of the $2.5bn is compensation to victims rather than a fine. A jury might have imposed punitive damages of ten times that.

Dare I suggest the modesty of the penalty is not unconnected with Boeing being an American company and the victims being foreigners?

I'm sure there will be lots more court cases brought privately


Insurance will cover most of the compensation for the victims and anyway they are a bunch of relatively poor foreigners in faraway countries and will not cost that much. These are not own beliefs (except for the insurance bit) but they probably cover the US thinking in the matter.

I am sure that the US Government does not want to drive Boeing out of business and the 'fine' if that is what it is needs to be no more than they can actually afford to pay.

Dod


Frankly $2.5 billion is trivial for a company the size of Boeing, and IMO the fine needs to be large enough to change behaviour. Boeing's market cap, even in these Covid depressed times for plane makers, is $122 billion. It was double that 2 years ago.

Pity they can't fine the FAA, who seem to have been deeply culpable also!

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Boeing

#375485

Postby Dod101 » January 10th, 2021, 2:12 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:Frankly $2.5 billion is trivial for a company the size of Boeing, and IMO the fine needs to be large enough to change behaviour. Boeing's market cap, even in these Covid depressed times for plane makers, is $122 billion. It was double that 2 years ago.

Pity they can't fine the FAA, who seem to have been deeply culpable also!


I can't say that I disagree with anything you say. I did not realise that Boeing is still that size.

Dod

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Boeing

#378387

Postby dspp » January 18th, 2021, 4:39 pm

For some reason the Boeing thread seems to be the catch-all thread for aviation-related matters.

Here is a Brexit aviation article that may interest investors in either the industrial side, or the operational side.

https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/202 ... ference%3f

regards, dspp

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#378431

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » January 18th, 2021, 7:12 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:
Dod101 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
The penalties seem ludicrously small compared to the seriousness of their conduct and compared to other US fines. Most of the $2.5bn is compensation to victims rather than a fine. A jury might have imposed punitive damages of ten times that.

Dare I suggest the modesty of the penalty is not unconnected with Boeing being an American company and the victims being foreigners?

I'm sure there will be lots more court cases brought privately


Insurance will cover most of the compensation for the victims and anyway they are a bunch of relatively poor foreigners in faraway countries and will not cost that much. These are not own beliefs (except for the insurance bit) but they probably cover the US thinking in the matter.

I am sure that the US Government does not want to drive Boeing out of business and the 'fine' if that is what it is needs to be no more than they can actually afford to pay.

Dod


Frankly $2.5 billion is trivial for a company the size of Boeing, and IMO the fine needs to be large enough to change behaviour. Boeing's market cap, even in these Covid depressed times for plane makers, is $122 billion. It was double that 2 years ago.

Pity they can't fine the FAA, who seem to have been deeply culpable also!

I'd like, if I may please, to express a thought or two about aircraft safety. I don't wish to start a debate about how my thoughts need to be amended or redefined due to facts I have not taken into account. Perhaps they're not my thoughts. Perhaps they are the musings of a bumbling old Fool who hasn't got a clue what he is talking about? And perhaps on that we should agree.

Many of us, including me, are not aware of the mechanisms which govern flight safety. We all board aircraft assuming that we will not become another statistic. After all, the facts are quite clear, it remains the safest form of travel. But does that mean it's as safe as it could be? I'm not convinced. And in support of this outrageous comment I wonder if a poll of the relatives of those who died in the two Boeing Max crashes would disagree with me?

Neither of the Boeing Max vehicles should have crashed. Boeing put profit before safety. The Directors put their agenda first. And I would suggest that agenda was self enrichment. I'd suggest it could even have been greed. Let's not forget that after the second crash the CEO at Boeing continued to reassure President Trump that the Boeing vehicle was safe to fly. I wonder if the fox's were put in charge of the hen house? Many of those who were on Boeings board at the time remain in post. One has even been promoted to CEO after Muilenburg was fired.

And we, the travelling public, are now reassured that this must be the safest aircraft ever. The FAA and Boeing with the support of the NTSB have been over every inch of this aircraft and are now confident it is safe to fly. And perhaps they can convince the flying public just that. After all it can't happen again can it? I'd suggest it already has. The Boeing 737 was a two engine single aisle aircraft designed on the airframe of the 727 which had three engines. The removal of the third engine at the rear of the aircraft allowed the redesign of the rudder to become a major part in controlling the aircraft. The rudder was controlled by a valve which later turned out to have design issues. However, five aircraft crashed and (iirc) another five or six were suspected of having crashed due to this problem. The NTSB eventually discovered the problem and a Boeing engineer also worked out that the valve could physically not only stop working but work in reverse. The FAA ordered all Boeings aircraft to be updated to resolve the problem. Boeing did not unilaterally make this decision immediately upon hearing from their own engineer about the problem.

The NTSB (National Transport Safety Board) has no authority to enforce modifications. It acts in an advisory role.

The FAA has on at least one occasion not issued directions in writing to improve as advised by the NTSB. The McDonnell Douglas DC10 had safety issues with a cargo door that came off in flight on two occasions. At high level the FAA made a gentleman's agreement with McDonnell for improvements to be made. They were not.

Boeing have, in my humble opinion, got away with murder. I'm sure the diplomats and other highly paid people within the US will not share such a conclusion. If they did I believe the deaths would never have occurred in the first place. Boeing and the US will fight a war of words. Passive wording will reorganise the truth and reprioritise events. Other mechanisms will ensure we perceive that safety is now back to where it should have been.

The industry is in need of improvements with regard to safety. Its not good enough to say that aircraft travel is "still the safest way to travel". Not when it could be safer.

AiY

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Boeing

#378532

Postby dealtn » January 19th, 2021, 10:21 am

AsleepInYorkshire wrote: And in support of this outrageous comment I wonder if a poll of the relatives of those who died in the two Boeing Max crashes would disagree with me?



You think such a poll would be useful and free of confirmation bias?

Give me independent enquiries any time.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Boeing

#378560

Postby dspp » January 19th, 2021, 11:30 am

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:Rather off topic, but in response to AiY's concerns regarding aircraft safety, I have the exact same concerns about off shore oil and gas facility safety. Unfortunately, it's going to take another Piper Alpha type incident to get things back on track there. I mention it because there are a lot of similarities in the O&G industry safety regime with what occurred on the 737Max design. The resulting issues are just as deadly.

RVF


RVF,
If you want to discuss that topic further please do so on the Oil, Gas, & Energy board at viewforum.php?f=16. (Many years ago I was an OIM and indeed, not everything was perfect.)
Regards,
dspp

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#378573

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » January 19th, 2021, 12:13 pm

Boeing 737 Max to be cleared to fly in Europe
The head of Europe's aviation safety agency, EASA, has said Boeing's 737 Max plane will get final clearance to resume flying in Europe next week.

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#379888

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » January 23rd, 2021, 9:05 am

How to investigate a firm with 60 million documents
The forensic accountant was part of a team that had to ferret out proof of wrongdoing at the aerospace giant Airbus after it admitted paying bribes via middlemen.

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#380441

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » January 25th, 2021, 1:05 am

Boeing 737 Max cleared to fly again 'too early'
A former senior manager at Boeing's 737 plant in Seattle has raised new concerns over the safety of the company's 737 Max.
...
Ed Pierson claims that further investigation of electrical issues and production quality problems at the 737 factory is badly needed.

AiY

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1194 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: (More woes for) Boeing

#388651

Postby richfool » February 22nd, 2021, 10:29 am

More woes for Boeing, now with the 777 engines:
The US plane manufacturer Boeing has recommended grounding dozens of its 777 aircraft around the world after one of the jets suffered an engine failure.

The plane, carrying 231 passengers, was forced to return to Denver airport on Saturday. No injuries were reported.

United Airlines and Japan's two main airlines have stopped using 62 planes. Korean Air says it will ground six.

In total, Boeing said 128 aircraft with the same engine as the Denver plane should be grounded.

"While [an] investigation is ongoing, we recommended suspending operations of the 69 in-service and 59 in-storage 777 aircraft powered by Pratt & Whitney 4000-112 engines," the company said in a statement.

Pratt & Whitney said it had dispatched a team to work with investigators.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), United is the only US airline flying this model of 777, with the others being in Japan and South Korea.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56149894

torata
Lemon Slice
Posts: 521
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 1:25 am
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Re: (More woes for) Boeing

#388666

Postby torata » February 22nd, 2021, 11:10 am

richfool wrote:More woes for Boeing, now with the 777 engines:
...

Pratt & Whitney said it had dispatched a team to work with investigators.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), United is the only US airline flying this model of 777, with the others being in Japan and South Korea.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56149894


Yes, there was an engine failure in December last year on a JAL 777 with same engine resulting in emergency landing. Fan blade damage was the cause.
But it seems these PW engines are old and haven't been installed as new for maybe 20 years, so it doesn't affect many aircraft in total.

torata

airbus330
Lemon Slice
Posts: 558
Joined: December 1st, 2018, 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 364 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Boeing

#390517

Postby airbus330 » February 27th, 2021, 10:43 am

Boeing 787 Dreamliner woes are ramping up. 88 frames now require inspection which takes a month of heavy maintenance to carry out. Within the industry, it is suspected that all frames will require inspection/modification in the end. The fine is derisory, but the mod. bill could run to billions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... Abody_link

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1194 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#390562

Postby richfool » February 27th, 2021, 12:09 pm

airbus330 wrote:Boeing 787 Dreamliner woes are ramping up. 88 frames now require inspection which takes a month of heavy maintenance to carry out. Within the industry, it is suspected that all frames will require inspection/modification in the end. The fine is derisory, but the mod. bill could run to billions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... Abody_link

Maybe they will have to change its name from the "Dreamliner" to the "Nightmare Liner"!

I'm beginning to think, that if I get to fly anywhere again, it will have to be an Airbus, and not a Boeing. Though the question then becomes, can I make that a condition of my booking? I do recall a couple of years back that I made a booking and seat reservation on an Airbus A350, but the airline later changed it to a B777 because the Airbus was due a service.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: Boeing

#390598

Postby Lootman » February 27th, 2021, 1:23 pm

richfool wrote:
airbus330 wrote:Boeing 787 Dreamliner woes are ramping up. 88 frames now require inspection which takes a month of heavy maintenance to carry out. Within the industry, it is suspected that all frames will require inspection/modification in the end. The fine is derisory, but the mod. bill could run to billions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... Abody_link

Maybe they will have to change its name from the "Dreamliner" to the "Nightmare Liner"!

I'm beginning to think, that if I get to fly anywhere again, it will have to be an Airbus, and not a Boeing. Though the question then becomes, can I make that a condition of my booking? I do recall a couple of years back that I made a booking and seat reservation on an Airbus A350, but the airline later changed it to a B777 because the Airbus was due a service.

The key in that case is to choose an airline that doesn't have in its fleet any of the planes you are trying to avoid.

So for example Aer Lingus and FinnAir only have Airbus aircraft. Although even then there is a non-zero possibility that the airline could "wet lease" a different plane. In such a lease the airline borrows not just the plane but also its flight crew.

The Airbus A350 would be my first choice these days. It is similar to the dreamliner but more spacious. As far as I know it doesn't have any issues, but then it has probably done fewer miles than any other widebody..

airbus330
Lemon Slice
Posts: 558
Joined: December 1st, 2018, 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 364 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Boeing

#390665

Postby airbus330 » February 27th, 2021, 4:28 pm

Lootman wrote:
richfool wrote:
airbus330 wrote:Boeing 787 Dreamliner woes are ramping up. 88 frames now require inspection which takes a month of heavy maintenance to carry out. Within the industry, it is suspected that all frames will require inspection/modification in the end. The fine is derisory, but the mod. bill could run to billions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... Abody_link

Maybe they will have to change its name from the "Dreamliner" to the "Nightmare Liner"!

I'm beginning to think, that if I get to fly anywhere again, it will have to be an Airbus, and not a Boeing. Though the question then becomes, can I make that a condition of my booking? I do recall a couple of years back that I made a booking and seat reservation on an Airbus A350, but the airline later changed it to a B777 because the Airbus was due a service.

The key in that case is to choose an airline that doesn't have in its fleet any of the planes you are trying to avoid.

So for example Aer Lingus and FinnAir only have Airbus aircraft. Although even then there is a non-zero possibility that the airline could "wet lease" a different plane. In such a lease the airline borrows not just the plane but also its flight crew.

The Airbus A350 would be my first choice these days. It is similar to the dreamliner but more spacious. As far as I know it doesn't have any issues, but then it has probably done fewer miles than any other widebody..

This is what I am doing, it is not so hard to avoid the 787 or the Max. I'm not bothered by the 777 engine issues as the 777 is otherwise built like a tank.Even J2's ancient 757 or TUI's ancient 767 are good.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6559 times

Re: Boeing

#395029

Postby Lootman » March 12th, 2021, 6:06 pm

Boeing is up to $266 today and has nearly tripled since its low a year ago.

Two more orders for the Max announced today, including a big one from 737-only airline SouthWest Airlines.

I am glad I kept my faith in it, although I had my doubts for a while. All-time high was around $500 IIRC.

Still not sure I would get on a Max, but as a shareholder I am happy to see that others are willing to.

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1194 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#405104

Postby richfool » April 18th, 2021, 1:06 pm

Boeing board under pressure as families of 737 Max crash victims push reform at the top

Two more top-level directors could be ousted from Boeing’s board of directors next week as family members of the victims of two fatal crashes of its 737 Max jets join shareholders to push for further high-level reforms at the aerospace giant.

Related: Denver plane engine fire consistent with metal fatigue in fan blade, say investigators

The $146bn Chicago-headquartered company holds its annual meeting on Tuesday as it attempts to recover its financial and reputational poise in the wake of the grounding of its 737 Max planes and the pandemic’s upending of the commercial travel market.

Boeing has made changes to the membership and structure of its board since a second 737 Max crashed in Ethiopia in 2019, including seven directors who have already left or are due to step down next week. The changes, however, have not included two key executives under attack from some family members and shareholders, the chairman, Larry Kellner, and Edmund Giambastiani, who heads the board’s safety panel.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/boein ... 02790.html

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#407371

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » April 27th, 2021, 1:44 pm

More Max Problems Reported

The interesting part of this report is the commentators mention that the press and the public have their eyes firmly focused on the Max. Proverbially it couldn't fart downstream in a hurricane without a mouse smelling it 4km upstream.

AiY


Return to “Stocks and Share Dealing Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests